The Draft Yosemite Wilderness Stewardship Plan

There is much to love about Yosemite National Park. One of the more obscure virtues I’ve always appreciated is its unwillingness to change. From the view as you exit the tunnel on Highway 41, to the trail intersection signs, to the upholstery on the overstuffed chairs in the Great Room of the Ahwahnee*, there is something enormously comforting about knowing that, even if I am away for a few years, all will be exactly the same when I return.

[*If you try to tell me to use that other name, I’ll stuff a live pika into your sleeping bag!]

Don’t look now, but change is coming for those of us who enjoy hiking and camping in the backcountry – especially John Muir Trail hikers.

The National Park Service is in the final stages of releasing the new Wilderness Stewardship Plan. Two groups will likely be impacted in a big way: overnight backpackers and those who travel with stock. For backpackers, the changes are going to involve wilderness permits.

I’m going to write this article in two parts. First, I’ll describe, as dispassionately as possible, and while attempting to see things from the NPS point of view, the alternatives they are considering. I’ll do my best to convey, “Just the facts.” Then, I’ll tell you what I think. I am only going to discuss the impact on wilderness permits for hikers. If you are interested in stock, I suggest you click on the link, above, and do some reading.

The park service is supposed to keep the wilderness, well, wild. That means few facilities (although you will find some), no mechanized equipment (with some exceptions, mostly for emergency responders), and solitude. For the vast majority of the Yosemite backcountry, the NPS is doing pretty well. Take a look at the chart, below. (All charts from the NPS, which, by the way, did an excellent job preparing documents for the public to review.)

There has definitely been an increase over the years, but it’s a big backcountry. It can swallow an extra eight or ten thousand hikers, spread over an entire hiking season, without too much trouble.

Now take a look at the same data for John Muir Trail hikers.

Although the gross numbers are far lower, the percentage increase is substantial. And the John Muir Trail (and the campsites along it) represents a tiny fraction of the Yosemite backcountry. The Pacific Crest Trail statistics are just as alarming.

To digress for just a moment, I was really surprised at this number. Nearly 4500 hikers are making it this far from the Mexican border? Wow. (Or, perhaps, this is just permits and not actual hikers? If it is the number of permits, how many get as far as Donohue Pass? I would guess less than half.)

All of this is calling the NPS to action. The current technique of managing how many backpackers are in the wilderness at any given time is an indirect one – through trailhead entry permits. The idea is to limit the number of campers in a particular zone by limiting the number of entries via trailheads near that zone. The park service believes this approach is no longer working. Actually, it’s working fine in most of the fifty-three travel zones that the park service has divided Yosemite’s wilderness into, but it is failing (in their view) in some. They are considering four courses of action.

Course of Action 1: leave the current system in place and substantially reduce the trailhead entry quotas. The disadvantage of this course of action is pretty obvious: it will be much harder to get a permit. On the other hand, this also has an enormous upside: once a hiker entered the wilderness, he or she would be free to travel anywhere.

Course of Action 2: retain the current system, but add “camping permits” for certain high-use areas. The park service believes that this course of action would not require a reduction in trailhead entry quotas, which is a good thing. The number of “camping permits” would presumably be very limited, but that could be a relatively minor inconvenience. Much would depend in how many and how large the “high-use areas” were. If there are just a few and they are a mile square, it should be no big deal to hike through them to a spot where no “camping permit” would be required. If there were dozens and they were eight miles square, well, that’s a marmot of different color.

Course of Action 3: require reservations, within one of the fifty-three zones, on every single night of the trip. This would have a pretty significant impact on the way hikers experience the backcountry. Random divagations while I’m in the woods are as much a part of the trip as the scenery. On the other hand, once a hiker secured a permit for each night of the trip, entry could occur at any trailhead and you could spend the night anywhere within the zone you reserved. Entry permits would be discontinued completely.

Course of Action 4: same as #3, above, but add a requirement that campers spend the night at a designated campsite, within the zone where you made your reservation. The “designated campsite” rule would only apply to high-use zones.

So, there you have it. The first hiking season affected by the new Wilderness Stewardship Plan is expected to be 2018. The park service is collecting comments and you can make your voice heard here. The comment period ends on the last day of September, 2016.

Having digested this as well as I can, I have a few comments.

First, I think it is deeply misguided if the park service intends to try to make the John Muir Trail, within Yosemite, as unpopulated as most trails in the park. Even with the numbers we have now, it is possible to camp alone almost every night. And while it is not possible to hike the trail all day without seeing someone (at least between June and September), I think the NPS is choosing to view those hikers the wrong way: they are not interlopers spoiling the experience, they are novice backpackers on their one great wilderness adventure. To me, it is a small sacrifice we JMT hikers make to seed the rest of the population with citizens – and voters – who know why we need to spend money and write rules to protect the wilderness.

The park service also tends to conflate more hikers in the wilderness with more fire rings and depletion of firewood. Those problems could be eliminated completely with a blanket ban on fires – a prohibition that would have almost no impact on the vast majority of hikers. Certainly limiting fires is a better alternative than limiting people.

That said, I am not unsympathetic to the park service and their often conflicting objectives. If I had to choose a course of action from the list above, I would go with #2, with the caveat that high-use areas could not be more than a mile or so long (or perhaps a couple of miles long but no more than a quarter mile wide) and there would be as few as possible.

14 Comments

David TerrieSeptember 26, 2016 at 8:42 am

Ray,

Pretty ironic that the NPS spends millions to celebrate its 100th anniversary and encourage people to discover the parks and is then alarmed at the increase in visitors. Odds are high the 2015 numbers will stand out as outliers over time. You mention the vastness of of the Sierra. The JMT is iconic, but hardly the only stunningly beautiful and rewarding trail to hike. I’d love to hear from the collective wisdom of the JMT group regarding great hikes of varying length and difficulty that are not the JMT. Perhaps a subgroup could codify these options and encourage folks to consider them.

I agree Ray. When I did my JMT thru-hike in 2012 (thanks again for the help), the only “crowded” areas were around the popular casual tourist destinations, such as the first few miles out of Yosemite Valley up to the Half Dome trail, the area around Tuolomne meadows, the area around Red’s Meadow/Devil’s Postpile, and of course Mt. Whitney. Sadly, these are also the areas most prone to abuse of the trails, and most in need of monitoring by the NPS. The rest was mostly secluded and we were generally hiking alone, sometimes seeing no one for several hours. The more popular camping spots along the way would accumulate some people, such as McClure Meadow, but by morning, all but a few are gone. I believe that the increase in hikers seeking to do these hikes are partly due to the increase in popularity of the PCT (and thru-hikes in general) following the movie “Wild”, as well as what David Terrie said about PR campaigns trying to get people into the National Parks. I also understand the NPS’s perspective to a degree, I am very mindful of preserving the wilderness that I hike through and always “leave no trace”, and the vast majority of those I met in the backcountry were of the same mindset. While I would like to see them restore walk-in permits from the valley, I just hope they don’t restrict access to the point of making it unnecessarily difficult to enjoy the JMT. And while I do enjoy campfires, I agree that I’d rather see a blanket ban on them than further restrictions on access.

I can live with option #2 and prohibiting all fires, except for emergencies. This would preserve the character of hikes in the Sierra Nevada in terms of freedom of movement once in the wilderness. Personally I would want to avoid heavily used camping areas anyway. If we go down the path of #3 or #4, the character of hikes in the Sierra Nevada will be changed forever. Grand Canyon and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks are two places where some variation of #3 and #4 are used and I wouldn’t want to see that along the JMT. Right now, permit issues are kind of a hassle but once I’m in the wilderness I no longer have to think about bureaucratic issues, other than following LNT principles and abiding by simple camping restrictions.

The other issue is that I don’t think that there are enough rangers to actually enforce #3 or #4. I rarely meet backcountry rangers on my hikes and when I do I am rarely asked for my permit. I believe that the only worse thing that overly restrictive regulations are overly restrictive regulations that are not enforced which will reduce the credibility of the system and encourage violations. In an age of social media lack of enforcement will be duly noted and exploited.

While some might long for the solitude of a trail, I’ve been going to Yosemite simply because there will be people on the trail occasionally, so I can go solo without family worrying. I’ve been going in June and early July though and even in the core area, except the Half Dome Trail, it hasn’t been crazy. Many of those on the busy sections are dayhikers so cutting back on overnighters wouldn’t do much to reduce those numbers. I say reduce day hiker, group hikers and fire impacts first. If you want solitude- don’t go to a top 10 trail during peak time. Come on up to Canada if you want solitude but then you’ll need a group of 4 as you can’t get a permit at some times of the year for less than that many.
Hope the system hangs in there for awhile, having campsite freedom is pretty great!
Thanks for providing a great blog site!

Thanks for the link to provide comments to NPS.
My comment here diverges from your review of the proposed rules, but this regards horses/mules on the trail. I just completed the JMT on Sept 14 and we saw more than a dozen mule trains on the hike. Pack animals cause considerably more damage to trails than people do.
We joked that the JMT does not use rock cairns to mark the trail; horse shit serves that purpose. True story: on the way up Muir Pass (from the South) the trail forked and I was unsure which path was correct until I noticed the horse shit about 15 feet away.

Thanks for the comment, Bill. The use of stock is definitely one of the more divisive issues in the backcountry. I tend to support them, but I certainly don’t dispute that there is a scatological downside.

I hiked the JMT starting August 13th and finished at Whittney Portal. My first day in Yosemite was very interesting, lots of day hikers going up to the falls. I camped at LYV which was a bit busy but I could handle it. The next day I did not see any one for about 4 hours while I hiked to Cathedral Lake. I did not feel the trail was over crowed once you got out of TM. The only other times I felt it was a bit more crowded were the Rae loop hikers and WP day hikers. The rest of the time I could find a place to camp by myself if I wanted to. I do have one comment on the “group of hikers”. I came across 2 larger groups of people that had paid to be lead on the trail. I do not understand how this is allowed or how the commercial businesses are able to do this. One group at Evolution Lake were loud, they took up quite a bit of area and had a kithen area. In my opinion this should not be happening. Also, ban all fires. By the end of the day, I wanted to eat, see the stars and sleep. I did not see a need to ever have a fire. In my opinion, limit the number of day hikers, its not the backpackers and thru hikers that are the issue.
Just curious with the big increase usage on the JMT, what is the breakdown in the number of days on the trail? How many are out for a weekend, a week, or doing a thru-hike?

I’m not sure, Bill, if there is any data compiled and available on how many days people are staying on the trail. (The basic information is available on the permit reservations, but those are not available — at least to me.) I can’t agree with your proposed prohibition against commercial operators. They, like everyone else, should follow the rules, but the ones I have seen (e.g., SYMG) have been scupulous in their adherence to LNT. I want people (especially people who would not otherwise go into the wilderness without a guide) to experience the Sierra Nevada. The more voters we have out there who understand the value of the wilderness, the better. On the other hand, I, like you, have never understood the attraction of a campfire after a long day of hiking. Thanks for the comment!

After years of hiking in Denali Park, where you have to get backcountry permits for very specific areas for every night you are there, I can say that if they implement such a system elsewhere, the same thing will happen that happens now in Denali: many people will simply not comply with the regs. While I’ve certainly made an effort to be in the correct section, it’s just not always possible. Creeks become impassible, weather prevents travel, or physical injury may make it difficult for a hiker to get where they need to go. Meticulous planning goes awry; it’s nature. Why set up a regulatory system that many people will simply disregard? Maybe I’m misunderstanding those options.

The idea of large groups camping in wilderness is truly awful to me. I see those groups in car camping parks, and do whatever I can to remove myself from the situation. Yes, I was young once too, but we chose places far away from others to party (and still picked up our trash). Not sure if that is what James was referring to, but if so, yuck! My experience of large groups, including Boy Scouts!!, yes really – is that they litter, destroy, scare away all wildlife, play radios, play trumpets at midnight (twice I’ve witnessed this!), vomit, defacate and pee anywhere, drive 4 wheelers around my tent, shoot at targets near the campsite, I could go on. There is no negotiation even with the group leaders; you are just in the way of their good time. I have had too many such experiences; I have campsite PTSD. Avoid.